(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Resource Management Report January 1970"

FISH & WILDLIFE LIBRARY, MAPI! 



No. 104 



January 1970 



RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REPORT 





ONTARIO 



DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS 



HON. RENE BRUNELLE 
Minister 



G. H. U. BAYLY 
Deputy Minister 



No. 104 January 1970 



RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REPORT 



FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH 




ONTARIO 

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS 

HON. RENE BRUNELLE G. H. U. BAYLY 

Minister Deputy Minister 



RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REPORT 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
No. 104 January 1970 

Page 

Valens Waterfowl Hunting Program, 1969 1 

- R, J. E. Jean -Marie 

The Black Bear, White River District, 1967 to 1968 11 

- H. T. Adair 

Duck Banding by the Night-Lighting Method 29 

- D. N. Meeking 

- C. K. Barwell 
-S.J. Toole 

The Great Fishing Paradise--Will it Stand the Strain? 35 

- Carl E. Monk 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/resourcemanjan1970onta 



VALENS WATERFOWL HUNTING PROGRAM 
1969 

by 

R. J. E. JEAN -MARIE, Conservation Officer 
Lake Huron District 



ABSTRACT 



The Valens Area supplied recreation for a total 
of 227 hunters. They hunted for 1,017 hours averaging 
4.48 hours per hunter, A total of 240 ducks were 
harvested at a rate of one duck for every 4.24 hours 
of hunting and 1.06 ducks per hunter. Sex ratio of 
ducks harvested was 55 males to 100 females. 288 hun- 
ter days were available of which 227 or 78.8% were 
utilized. The Authority received $699.00 in revenue 
from boat and blind rental. 



INTRODUCTION 

The Valens Conservation Area consists of a man-made lake of approxi- 
mately 185 acres located at Highway #97 and the Valens Side Road, Beverly Twp., 
Wentworth County (Fig. 1). In 1969, a baited area was located on the south end 
of the lake as opposed to both ends of the lake in 1968. Six blinds were located 
on the lake--three on each side (Fig. 1). Waterfowl hunting was permitted 
between one-half hour before sunrise and 12 noon on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. 
Enforcement duties were carried out by Conservation Officers from the Hespeler 
Detachment of the Dept . of Lands and Forests and officers from the R. C. M. P. 
Hamilton Detachment. Only one violation under Section 6 of the Migratory Birds 
Convention Act was encountered by C.O. R. J. JEAN-MARIE. Charges were laid and 
a conviction registered. 

METHOD OF OPERATION 

The special regulations imposed on hunters by the Conservation 
Authority are shown in Appendix 1. Hunters purchased a $5,00 permit to hunt. 
Since the area has only six blinds, a first-come-first serve basis was instituted. 
Hunters' cars were parked in order of arrival in a parking lot located on Highway 
#97. Registration cards were issued at 5:00 a.m. on Monday, Wednesday, and 
Saturday in order of the hunters arrival positions. The hunters in car #1 would 
have first choice of any of the six blinds, hunters in car #2 would have the choice 
of the remaining five blinds and so forth. Hunters were requested to leave their 
Ontario Resident Hunting Licence and the Migratory Bird Permit with the superin- 
tendent until the hunters* departure from the park. 



[CURE 1 



LOCATION OF BLINDS 



NS 
ERVATI ON 




ENTRANCE' 



HUNTER 
PARKING 



HARVEST INFORMATION 

Waterfowl harvest report forms were completed by the superintendent 
of Valens for the period from October 6 to November 28, 1969. The area was not 
open in December due to an early freeze up. A total of 1,017 hours were spent by 
227 hunters in order to bag 240 ducks (Table 1). Green-winged teal, Mallard, 
Bufflehead, and Lesser Scaup were the major waterfowl species harvested (Table 3). 
They were harvested at a rate of one duck every 4.24 hours of hunting and 1.06 
ducks per hunter (Table 1) . 

HARVEST DATA COMPARISON FIGURES 1968 - 1969 

In 1968 only 140 hunters used the facilities available at Valens 
as compared with 227 hunters in 1969; this was an increase of 87 hunters or 61.7% 
(Table 2). The total number of hours hunted in 1968 was 381 compared to 1,017 
hours in 1969; this is an increase of 636 hours or 267.0% (Table 2). The total 
number of ducks harvested in 1968 was 79 compared to 240 ducks in 1969; this is 
an increase of 161 ducks or 303.8% (Table 2). 

SEX DATA 

Of the 240 ducks harvested, 85 were male and 155 were female. The 
sex ratio was 55 males to 100 females (Table 4). 

BLIND USE 

In 1969 an additional blind was added to the Valens Area making 
a total of six blinds available to the hunter. 

Total number of blinds available over 24 days hunting is 144. 
Total blinds used over 24 days - 102 + 19 = 121 or 121 x 100 - 84.0% (Table 7). 

144 

Maximum hunters which could be served equals 144 blind days x 2 
hunters per blind = 288 hunter days. 

Actual number of hunter days used equals 227 or 227 x 100 = 78.8% 
(Table 7). 288 

H UNTING PRESSURE AND HUNTERS ' RESIDENCE LOCALITY 

Saturday was again this year the most popular day at Valens, followed 
very closely by Wednesday and Monday (Table 5) . 

Hunters living within the watershed made up 71.4%, of the total number 
of hunters using the area. Ten hunters came from as far away as Toronto. (Table 6). 

COMMENTS 

The 1969 waterfowl hunt at Valens was extremely successful as indicated 
by the data compiled in this report. The superintendent of Valens estimated that 



approximately 50 of the 227 hunters using the area arrived at the park the evening 
prior to the hunt so that they could have first choice of the blinds. He also 
indicated that approximately 24 hunters were turned away because of full blinds. 
I would recommend that other Conservation Authorities be approached in an effort 
to open them for regulated waterfowl hunting. It appears that this type of hunting 
is fast becoming popular with the sportsmen of Southern Ontario. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Special thanks to Keith Gould, Superintendent of the Valens Area 
for his comments and information. 



TABLE 1 



HARVEST DATA 



BLIND 



# HUNTERS 



# HOURS 



# DUCKS 



1 

2 
3 

4 

5 

* 6 



44 
39 
40 
34 
35 
35 



198 
166 
187 
150 
155 
161 



74 
53 
32 
34 
14 
33 



TOTAL 



227 



1,017 



240 



* New blind added to area in 1969 



TABLE 2 



HARVEST DATA COMPARISON WITH 1968 & 1969 



BLIND 



# HUNTERS 
1968 1969 



# HOURS 
1968 1969 



# DUCKS 
1968 1969 



1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
* 6 



39 


44 


104 


198 


29 


39 


79 


166 


16 


40 


46 


187 


27 


34 


68 


150 


29 


35 


84 


155 


_.. 


35 


__ 


161 



36 


fW 


15 


53 


6 


32 


14 


34 


8 


14 


_ _ 


33 



TOTAL 


140 


227 


381 


1,017 


79 


240 


INCREASE 




87 




636 




161 


% INCREASE 




61.7 




267.0 




303.8 



* New blind added to area in 1969 



TABLE 3 



HARVEST DATA COMPILED BY BLIND 



















SPECIES 


BLIND 


BLIND 


BLIND 


BLIND 


BLIND 


BLIND 


TOTAL 




# 1 


# 2 


# 3 


# 4 


# 5 


# 6 




BLACK DUCK 


-- 


1 


1 


-- 


1 


2 


5 


BUFFLEHEAD 


8 


13 


1 


6 


2 


-- 


30 


CANVAS BACK 


1 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


1 


GADWALL 


-- 


1 


-- 


-> 


-- 


1 


2 


GOLDENEYE 


1 


2 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


3 


MALLARD 


9 


4 


6 


4 


2 


20 


45 


MERGANSER (H) 


2 


_. 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


2 


PINTAIL 


1 


1 


1 


-- 


-- 


1 


4 


REDHEAD 


-- 


-- 


-- 


1 


-- 


-- 


1 


SCAUP (GREATER) 


-- 


3 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


3 


SCAUP (LESSER) 


10 


6 


3 


5 


1 





25 


SHOVELLER 


1 


-- 


-- 


-- 


1 


-- 


2 


TEAL (BLUE -WINGED) 


5 


-- 


5 


3 


7 


2 


22 


TEAL (GREEN -WINGED) 


30 


19 


13 


13 


-- 


5 


80 


WIDGEON 


6 


2 


2 


2 


-- 


1 


13 


WOOD DUCK 


-- 


1 


-- 


-- 


-- 


1 


2 


TOTAL 


74 


53 


32 


34 


14 


33 


240 


% PRESSURE 


30.8 


22.1 


13.3 


14.2 


5,8 


13.8 


100.0 






TABLE 4 



SEX DATA COMPILED BY SPECIES 



SPECIES 



MALE 



FEMALE 



TOTAL 



BLACK DUCK 

BUFFLEHEAD 

CANVAS BACK 

GADWALL 

GOLDENEYE 

MALLARD 

MERGANSER (HOODED) 

PINTAIL 

REDHEAD 

SCAUP (GREATER) 

SCAUP (LESSER) 

SHOVELLER 

TEAL (BLUE -WINGED) 

TEAL (GREEN -WINGED) 

WIDGEON 

WOOD DUCK 



2 

14 

1 



3 
8 
2 

6 

35 

3 



2 
22 
1 
2 
1 
31 
1 
4 
1 

17 

16 

45 

10 

2 



5 

30 

1 

2 

3 

45 

2 

4 

1 

3 

25 

2 

22 

80 

13 

2 



TOTAL 



85 



155 



240 



TABLE 5 



HUNTING PRESSURE BY MONTH AND DAY 













MONTH 


MONDAY 


WEDNESDAY 


SATURDAY 


TOTAL HUNTERS 


OCTOBER 
NOVEMBER 
* DECEMBER 


41 
31 


37 
38 


32 
48 


110 
117 


TOTAL 


72 


75 


80 


227 


% PRESSURE 


31.7 


33.1 


35.2 


100.0 



* No hunting took place in December due to early freeze up. Ice on Lake, 
November 24, 1969. 



TABLE 6 



HUNTERS ' RESIDENCE LOCALITY BY NUMBER AND PER CENT 



LOCALITY 



# HUNTERS 



PER CENT 



(1) HAMILTON 

(2) BURLINGTON 

(3) DUNDAS 

(4) STONEY CREEK 

(5) GALT- PRESTON 

(6) TORONTO 

(7) OTHER 



150 
32 
11 
1 
8 
10 
15 



66.1 
14.1 
4.9 
.4 
3.5 
4.4 
6.6 



TOTAL 



227 



100.0 



TABLE 7 













BLIND 


USE 








BLIND 


# 


# 


DAYS USED 
2 HUNTERS 


BY 




# 


DAYS USED BY 
1 HUNTER 


# DAYS NOT 
IN USE 


1 






19 










5 





2 






18 










3 


3 


3 






17 










4 


3 


4 






17 













7 


5 






14 










6 


4 


6 






17 










1 


6 


TOTAL 






102 










19 


23 


TABLE 


8 



















ECONOMIC VALUE 



ITEM 



COST 



RECEIPT 



Construction and blind maintenance 

Baiting (corn and scratch grain) 

Supervision (checking hunters, 
baiting, cleanup and general labour) 

Brochures, paper, stencils, etc. 

Rental of blinds @ $5.00 per \ day 

Boat rental @ $1.00 per \ day 



$ 0.00 
$ 74.01 

$506.00 
$ 7.63 



$612.50 
$ 86.50 



TOTAL 



$587.64 



$699.00 



PROFIT 



$111.36 



APPENDIX 1 






SPECIAL WATERFOWL HUNTING REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY THE 



HAMILTON REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 



1 , Hours 



2. 


Blinds 


3. 


Records 


4. 


Firearms 


5. 


Shell Limit 


6. 


Game 


7. 


Licences 



5:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Hunters must leave the shooting area 
promptly at the closing hour. 

No shooting is allowed outside of the blinds. No more than 
two persons are allowed per blind. 

All hunters are required to submit records of the hunt includ- 
ing the hours hunted, birds bagged, etc. 

Shotguns only may be used. These must be encased or dismantled 
while hunters are going to and from blinds. 

12 shells per person. 

The only game which may be shot are ducks. The daily bag 
limits are according to the Migratory Bird Convention Act. 

Hunters will deposit their licences with the Park Superintendent 
when they are issued their Waterfowl Hunting Permit. 



10 






THE BLACK BEAR, WHITE RIVER DISTRICT 
1967 to 1968 



by 



Ho T. ADAIR, Conservation Officer 
White River District 



ABSTRACT 



During 1957-58 and 1965 through 1968, weights 
and measurements were recorded for 78 bears. There 
has been a total of 283 sightings of bears recorded 
by Conservation Officers over the two year period, 
1967-68. 

Fourteen bears were live trapped in 1968 of 
which eight were tagged with one return, 

The Ontario record Black Bear was shot in the 
White River District in 1967, weighing 524^ lbs. 
total weight , 

INTRODUCTION 

In 1957-58, limited investigation to gather general information on 
bears was carried out in the White River District, At this time accurate weights 
and measurements were collected ^ 

Starting in 1965 up to the present date, another investigation has 
been carried out to gather information on bear. During this period, accurate 
weights and measurements of bear have been collected, they have been live trapped, 
tagged and sightings recorded by Conservation Officers. 

The basic objective is to provide information necessary for the 
correct management of the Black Bear and to try to improve the bear's status in 
Northern Ontario. 



METHOD 

Weights and measurements of bears shot in 195 7-58 were taken from 
a 1959 Report, "The Size, Rate of Growth and Longevity of the Black Bear" by C „ W 
Douglas . 

Between 1965 and 1968 weights and measurements were taken from 
bears shot as nuisance bears, those shot by hunters and those killed on roads and 
railways. The information was collected on a "Black Bear Study" form as per 
sample following. 



11 









BLACK BEAR STUDY 



Specimen No . 

Date 

Col lee Lor 

Sex 



Location 



How Taken 



Weight 



Measurements 
Total Length 
Girth 
Ear 



Tail Length 
Hind Foot 
Front Leg 



Comments 



Live Trapping : Figure II and Figure III show the two traps which 
were used to live trap the bear„ Both traps were quite successful but it was found 
that certain aspects of both traps needed improvement. As 1968 was White River's 
first attempt at live trapping, these traps were experimental and needed constant 
modifications . 

When setting the trap, it was found necessary to set it well away 
from any place frequented by children because of the dangers involved. Traps were 
usually set after a nuisance bear report was received by the Department. 

Bait varied, but a large piece of bacon fat covered with honey or 
molasses was found to be the most effective. 

After some experience, it was found that by cutting holes in the 
top of the trap the bear's car could be pulled up with 24" forging tongs, forcing 
the head to the top of the trap where the ear could be tagged through one of the 
holes. This method was used until a syringe was acquired, Succinyl-choline 
chloride was used to tranquilize the last two bears trapped. Through a hole in 
the trap, the needle was inserted into the bear's thigh. 



FIGURE I 



/ 



1 inch x 6 f t . aluminum pipe 



wing nuts 

i 



Syringe is compressed forcing drug in, when pushed into bear. 



12 



A dosage level recommended by Palmer Chemical and Equipment Co. 
Inc. of one cc . per 100 lbs. of body weight was used. The trap and the bear were 
weighed together and the weight of the trap was subtracted to give the Wright of 
the bear . 

Bear sightings and nuisance bears destroyed were recorded by each 
Conservation Officer while on regular patrol duties. An effort was made to dis- 
tinguish between duplicate sightings. 



FIGURE II 



WHITE RIVER TRAP (2-45 Gal. Drums) 



Heavv Cord 




Pull 

Eye 



ey 



i r — L-j~ 

Holes in Top 






70". 






Safety Bolt 



<Handle 



r- 







e V x 



'2 eiu . 



Hole for Pin 



.24*' 



13 



FIGURE III 



MANITOUWADGE TRAP (36" Culvert) 



84' 



Pulley 



V Cabl 



\ 



0< 

6" Holes 



Bait 




60" 



36 1 



Heavy Gauge Mesh 



Boat Trailer 



• 32" 



(F fr 



/ 



Handle 




V 



x 



Hole for Pin 



-<~ T » y- b«4I JU 



14 



RESULTS 



TABLE 1 



BLACK BEAR 



WEIGHTS AND MEASUREMENTS. 1957-58 






WEIGHT (LBS.) 



LENGTH (CMS) 



DATE 



A -MALE 


19.5 


70.2 


June 


6, 1958 




100.0 


139.7 


June 


7, 1958 




115.0 


127.0 


Aug. 


18, 1958 




130.0 


129.5 


July 


4, 1958 




138.5 


129.5 


July 


4, 1958 




210.0 


147.9 


July 


8, 1958 




225.0 


129.5 


June 


12, 1958 




240.0 


160.0 


Sept 


, 17, 1958 




245.0 


139.7 


Sept 


. 24, 1957 




265.0 


152.4 


Sept 


. 9, 1958 




277.0 


165.1 


July 


12, 1958 




291.0 


154.9 


July 


8, 1958 




333.0 


165.1 


July 


9, 1958 




Weight not known 


168.0 


July 


11, 1958 


B-FEMALE 


20.0 
105.0 


78.7 
121.9 


June 
July 


4, 1958 




8, 1958 




125.0 


144.9 


July 


5, 1958 




127.0 


144.9 


July 


17, 1958 




141.0 


149.3 


Sept 


. 5, 1958 




180.0 


137.2 


July 


8, 1958 



15 



TABLE 2 



MALE BLACK BEAR 









WEIGHTS 


AND MEAS 


UREMENTS 


, 1965-68 






DATE 


WEIGHT 


LENGTH 


GIRTH 


EAR 


TAIL LENGTH 


HIND FOOT 


FRONT 






(LBS.) 


(CM) 


(CM) 


(CM) 


(CM) 


(CM) 


LEG 


June 20 


, 1967 


90 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


Sept. 3 


, 1967 


524.5 


184.0 


157.5 


12.2 


11.0 


31.5 


103.0 


July 25 


, 1968 


431.0 


195.6 


149.9 


13.3 


7.6 


19.1 


78.7 


July 17 


, 1968 


390.0 


190.5 


144.8 


14.0 


10.2 


21.6 


-- 


July 23. 


1968 


389.0 


-- 


137.0 


10.5 


9.0 


21.0 


80.5 


Aug. 30. 


, 1968 


387.0 


182.9 


149.7 


11.4 


8.4 


24.1 


88.9 


Oct. 10 


, 1967 


380.0 


175.3 


-- 


12.7 


12.7 


24.1 


66.0 


July 25 


, 1968 


322.0 


169.0 


113.0 


11.0 


11.0 


22.5 


79.0 


Aug. 18 


, 1968 


322.0 


173.0 


143.0 


10.0 


2.0 


22.0 


65.0 


July 17 


1968 


250.0 


177.8 


111.8 


12.7 


10.2 


22.9 


-- 


July 13 


1968 


236.0 


158.0 


106.0 


13.0 


Tail Missing 


21.0 


77.0 


Sept. 3, 


, 1967 


232.5 


157.5 


76.0 


13.0 


11.8 


24.1 


80.3 


Aug. 11 


, 1968 


175.5 


142.4 


79.0 


12.8 


11.2 


12.2 


64.8 


Aug. 4. 


1968 


170.0 


139,7 


91.4 


10.2 


5.1 


15.2 


58.4 


Aug. 2 


1968 


116.0 


130.2 


70.5 


13,5 


8.5 


24.2 


62.0 


July 9. 


1968 


111.0 


137.2 


83.8 


13.0 


12.7 


21.6 


58.4 


Aug. 23. 


1968 


94.5 


111.1 


79.3 


10.8 


10.2 


14.0 


99.3 


July 24. 


, 1968 


100.0 


127.0 


81.3 


11.4 


8.9 


16.5 


53.4 


Aug . 2 . 


1968 


65.5 


108.4 


50.7 


11.2 


7,7 


20.5 


52.5 


Sept. 3( 


), 1966 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-_ 


-. 


18.4 


-- 


Sept. 7 


1968 


29.5 


80.5 


44.5 


__ 


5.2 


15.0 


38.0 



16 



TABLE 2 CONTINUED 



»DATE WEIGHT LENGTH GIRTH EAR TAIL LENGTH HIND FOOT FRONT 
(LBS.) (CM) (CM) (CM) (CM) (CM) LEG 



Sept . 


15, 


1968 


244.0 


171.5 


119.5 


11.5 


8.5 


18.5 


68.0 


Aug. 


31, 


1968 


336.0 


188.0 


106.0 


11.5 


5.5 


23.0 


77.0 


July 


7, 


1966 


176.0 


161.2 


90.2 


11.1 


11.4 


24.1 


50.8 


July 


14, 


1966 


-- 


124.5 


73.7 


13.3 


10.8 


21.0 


54.3 


Sept . 


16, 


1966 


-- 


165.1 


96.5 


11.4 


6.4 


22.2 


-- 


Oct. 


11, 


1966 


-- 


190.5 


-- 


12.7 


10.2 


16.5 


-- 


Oct. 


8, 


1966 


-- 


129.5 


— 


14.6 


5.1 


15.2 


-- 


Aug. 


29, 


1965 


-> 


171.5 


125.7 


8.3 


14.3 


19.7 


72.4 


June 


13, 


1968 


-- 


169.0 


— 


12.0 


-- 


19.4 


-- 


Oct. 


1, 


1966 


__ 


185.4 


_- 


12.7 


-- 


20.3 


63.5 


July 


18, 


1967 


-- 


146.7 


81.9 


12.1 


8.3 


18.4 


55.9 


Oct. 


2, 


1966 


-- 


167.6 


-- 


12.7 


10.2 


15.2 


-- 



17 



TABLE 3 



FEMALE BLACK BEAR 



WEIGHTS AND MEASUREMENTS, 1965-68 



DATE 



WEIGHT LENGTH GIRTH EAR 
(LBS.) (CM) (CM) (CM) 



TAIL LENGTH HIND FOOT FRONT 
(CM) (CM) LEG 



July 12, 
Sept. 2! 
July 25 
July 27 
Aug. 29. 
July 25 
Aug. 30 , 
Aug. 29, 
July 25 
Sept. 21, 
Aug. 29. 
July 29, 
Aug. 29, 
Aug. 26, 
Oct. 1 
Aug. 16, 



1968 
1967 
1968 
1965 
1968 
1968 
1968 
1968 
1968 
1967 
1968 
1968 
1968 
1968 
1968 
1968 



58.0 
51.5 
54.0 

31.0 
252.0 
182.0 
177.0 
175.0 
172.5 
1.59.5 
158.0 
151.0 

63.0 
190.0 

97.0 



99.1 
83.9 
96.5 
154.9 
86.5 
177.0 
139.7 
151.5 
142.2 
145.4 
144.2 
139.8 
141.0 
110.0 
154.9 
133.0 



63.5 
62.2 
63.5 

109.2 
50.8 

114.0 
94.0 
74.0 

104.1 
87.7 
83.8 
69.3 
86.4 
56.0 
91.4 
66.0 



12.4 
9.5 
11.4 
14.6 
8.9 
12.5 
10.2 
10.8 
11.1 
12.7 
12.1 
10.4 
12.7 
9.6 
10.2 
11.0 



10.2 
3.8 
5.1 

12.1 
7.0 
9.0 
6.7 
9.0 
7.6 
7.6 
8.3 
8.4 
7.0 
4.0 
8.9 
6.0 



20.3 
14.0 
12.7 
17.4 
12.1 
22.5 
20.3 
23.7 
17.8 
17.8 
17.8 
24.5 
20.3 
14.0 
20.3 
16.0 



38.1 
45.7 
67.4 
35.6 
88.0 
68.9 
70.5 
61.0 
66.7 
55.9 
77.6 
66.0 
44.0 
64.8 
58.5 



18 



TABLE 4 



WEIGHT CLASSES OF MALE BEAR 



NO. 



DATE 



WEIGHT 



LENGTH 



AGE 



1. 


June 6 


, 1958 


2. 


Sept. 7 


, 1968 


3. 


Aug. 2 


, 1968 


4. 


Aug . 23 


, 1968 


5. 


July 24 


, 1968 


6. 


June 7 


, 1958 


7. 


July 9 


, 1968 


8. 


Aug. 18 


, 1958 


9. 


Aug. 2 


, 1968 


10. 


July 4 


, 1958 


11. 


July 4 


, 1958 


12. 


Aug . 4 


, 1968 


13. 


Aug . 1 1 


, 1968 


14. 


July 7 


, 1966 


15. 


July 8 


, 1958 


16. 


June 12 


, 1958 


17. 


Sept. 3 


, 1967 


18. 


July 13 


, 1968 


19. 


Sept 15 


, 1968 


20. 


Sept. 24 


, 1957 


21. 


July 17 


, 1968 


22. 


Sept. 9 


, 1958 


23. 


July 12 


, 1958 


24. 


July 8 


, 1958 


25. 


July 25 


, 1958 


26. 


Aug. 18 


1958 


27. 


July 9 


1958 


28. 


Aug. 31 j 


1968 


29. 


Oct. 10, 


1967 


30. 


Aug. 30, 


1968 


31. 


July 23 , 


1968 


32. 


July 17. 


1968 


33. 


July 25, 


1968 


34. 


Sept. 3, 


1967 



19.5 


70.2 


29.5 


80.5 


65.5 


108.4 


94.5 


111.1 


100.0 


127.0 


100.0 


139.7 


111.0 


137.2 


115.0 


127.0 


116.0 


130.2 


130.0 


129,5 


138.5 


129.5 


170.0 


139.7 


175.5 


142 .4 


176.0 


161.2 


210.0 


147.9 


225.0 


129.5 


232.5 


157.5 


236.0 


158.0 


244.0 


171.5 


245.0 


139.7 


250.0 


177.8 


265.0 


152.4 


277.0 


165.1 


291.0 


154.9 


322 ,0 


169.0 


322.0 


173.0 


333.0 


165.1 


336.0 


188.0 


380.0 


175.3 


387.0 


182.9 


389.0 


_~ 


390.0 


190.5 


431.0 


195.6 


524.5 


184.0 


7,831.0 4. 34 = 


230.2 average weight of male 



19 



TABLE 5 



WEIGHT CLASSES OF FEMALE BEARS 



NO. 



DATE 



WEIGHT 



LENGTH 



AGE 



1. 


July 4, 


1958 


30.0 


78.7 


2. 


Aug. 29, 


1968 


31.0 


86.5 


3. 


Sept. 21, 


1967 


51.5 


83.9 


4. 


July 25, 


1968 


54.0 


96.5 


5. 


July 12, 


1968 


58.0 


99.1 


6. 


Aug. 16, 


1968 


97.0 


133.0 


7. 


July 8, 


1958 


105.0 


121.9 


8. 


July 5, 


1958 


125.0 


144.9 


9. 


July 17, 


1958 


127.0 


144.9 


10. 


Sept. 5, 


1958 


141.0 


149.3 


11. 


Aug. 29, 


1968 


151.0 


141.0 


12. 


July 29, 


1968 


158.0 


139.8 


13. 


Aug. 29, 


1968 


159.5 


144.2 


14. 


Sept. 21, 


1967 


172.5 


145.4 


15. 


July 25, 


1968 


175.0 


142.2 


16. 


Aug. 29, 


1968 


177.0 


151.5 


17. 


July 8, 


1958 


180.0 


137.2 


18. 


Aug. 30, 


1968 


182.0 


139.7 


19. 


Oct. 1, 


1968 


190.0 


154.9 


20. 


July 25, 


1968 


252.0 


177.0 



2,606.5 -7 20 ■ 130.3 lbs. average 
weight of female bear 



20 



TABLE 6 



COMPARISON OF TOTAL WEIGHTS TO DRESSED WEIGHTS 

OF BLACK BEARS 

1968 



DATE 



Aug. 29, 1968 

July 29, 1968 

Aug. 11, 1968 

Aug. 2, 1968 

Aug. 2, 1968 

Sept. 7, 1968 



TABLE 7 



SEX 



WEIGHT 



GUTTED WEIGHT 



PER CENT WEIGHT LOST 



Female 


177.0 


lbs. 


144.5 lbs. 


Female 


158.0 


lbs. 


113.0 lbs. 


Male 


175.5 


lbs. 


164.0 lbs. 


Male 


116.0 


lbs. 


93.0 lbs. 


Male 


65.5 


lbs. 


53.0 lbs. 


Male 


29.5 


lbs. 


24.5 lbs. 



18.3% 
28 .4% 
6.57, 
19.87 
19.17. 
17.07o 



TOTAL: 109.17. 4 6 
AVERAGE: 18.27 



ROAD KILLS BY DIVISION 



DATE 



WHITE RIVER 



MANITOUWADGE 



WAWA FRANZ RED ROCK 



TOTAL 



1967 
1968 



1 

15 



* Red Rock was not in the White River District in the summer of 1967. 



21 



TABLE 8 



BEARS TRAPPED AND TAGGED 

















NO. 


DATE 




LOCATION TRAPPED 


LOCATION RELEASED 


TAG NO. 


1. 


Aug. 


21, 


1968 


Depew R., Hwy . 17 
East 


Cholette Lake, Welsh 
Twp. 


4672D 
returned 


2. 


Aug. 


22, 


1968 


Kwinkwaga L., 
Mikano Twp . 


Air Strip, Welsh Twp. 


4665D 


3. 


Aug. 


23, 


1968 


Cedar L. Lodge, 
Twp. 72 


Copper L. Camp, 
Magone Twp. 


4667D 


4. 


Aug. 


28, 


1968 


Hwy. 17 West of 
Dune L. 


Cholette L., Welsh 
Twp. 


4666D 


5. 


Aug. 


28, 


1968 


Copper L. Camp, 
Welsh Twp. 


Silver City Rd., 
Twp. 70 


4670D 


6. 


Aug. 


31, 


1968 


Mother shot at 
Red Rock 


Raven L., Magone Twp. 


4656D 


7. 


Sept, 


11, 


1968 


O'Brien Siding, 
Twp. 64 


Kabossakwa L., 
Mikano Twp. 


205 one side 
55G other side 


8. 


Sept, 


12, 


1968 


White L. Park, 
Twp. 71 


Kabossakwa L., 
Mikano Twp. 


Not tagged 


9. 


Sept. 


17, 


1968 


ii 


ii 


206 


10. 


Sept. 


25, 


1968 


n 


ti 


Not tagged 


11. 








Manitouwadge Town 


Four Bay Creek, 
Grenville Twp. 


Not tagged 


12. 








M 


ii 


Not tagged 


13. 








ii 


Sandy Lake, 
Thunder Bay Dist. 


Not tagged 


14. 








n 


Little Nama L,, 
Thunder Bay Dist. 


Not tagged 



22 



TABLE 9 



BLACK BEARS TRANQUILIZED 



WEIGHT DOSAGE PASSED OUT TIME 



PARTIAL RECOVERY 



200 lbs. 2 cc. 
81 lbs. 1 cc. 



15 minutes 

1 to 2 minutes 



35 minutes 
15 minutes 



COMPLETE RECOVERY 



2 to 3 hours 

20 to 25 minutes 



TABLE 10 



BLACK BEAR OBSERVATIONS BY MANAGEMENT AREAS 



YEAR AREA #1 AREA #2 AREA #3 AREA #4 AREA #5 AREA #6 AREA #7 



1967 


22 


*17 


*17 


29 


1958 


36 


28 


20 


29 



31 



22 
93 



21 



*(1) In 1967 Area #2 and #3 were recorded as one which totalled to 17 observations. 
$(2) Area #7 (Red Rock) was not in the White River District in 1967, 



TABLE 11 



NUISANCE BEAR SHOT. 1967 AND 1968 



YEAR WHITE RIVER 

1967 1 

1968 20 



MANITOUWADGE 

3 
17 



WAWA 



55 



FRANZ RED ROCK TOTAL 

12 -- 24 

26 9 127 



23 



WHITE RIVER 



ADMINISTRATIVE 
DISTRICT 



AREA (IN SQUARE MILES) 



13,14" 



r VM 






ADMINISTRATIVE 


FIRE DISTRICT 


LANO 1 WATER 1 TOTAL 


LAND _, 


WATER 


TOTAL 


7941 I 4,131 1 12.072 


7,941 


4,131 


T2.072 



WATER AREAS INCLUOE 3,497 30 MILES OF LAKE SUPERIOR 
MILES 



fHrf 






— 1 



M 






2 ^W^^Sl ^ flW ^fWf^&^ 






RSfc^ ftAw: ^ssS»- 






-«f 









"f%N 



isfcfo 



.8 




• Trapped Site 
O Released Site 



24 



ONTARIO 

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS and FORESTS 

13 May 1968 



OBSERVATIONS 

In Tables 4 and 5, where the bears are listed in order of their 
weights, there is a distinguishable difference between groups of weights suggesting 
definite age classes. This may be more obvious when the ages from the Maple 
Laboratory are inserted into column five. 

Tables 4 and 5 also show a great difference between the average 
weight of the male (230.3 lbs.) and the average weight of the female (130.3 lbs.). 

C. W. Douglas (1959) suggested that bears on the average lose 
14.1% of their weight when gutted. When both percentages are averaged together, 
we come up with a gutted weight loss of 16.2% (Table 6). 

Ratio of Males to Females : In 1957-58, the ratio of males to 
females was 13:6 or 2.2:1. During 1965 to 1968, the ratio of males to females 
was 22:15 or 1.4:1. 

Six bears trapped were not tagged. 

A total of fourteen bears were trapped in the White River District 
(1968), of which eight were tagged. 

Number one tag, No. 4676D, was the only return. She was killed 
eight days after release at the same site as she was previously trapped. Having 
returned 36 miles as the crow flies in less than eight days. 

The above-mentioned was the only bear of fourteen trapped and 
transported that returned to the place of trapping. 

Very little information was collected on bears which were live- 
trapped as the proper equipment for tranquilizing was not available until late 
in the season. 

Four bears trapped in Manitouwadge area were not tagged as the 
equipment was not available. 

The 1968 sightings (258) were almost three-fold that of 1967 (90). 
Table 11 shows a five-fold increase in the number of nuisance bears shot in 1968 
over those shot in 1967. 

From the majority of the bears observed, it was noticed that most 
bears re-visited the same area throughout the summer months. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The large number of nuisance bears available for study this year 
is directly attributed to the shortage of natural food. With the exception of 
wild raspberry, blueberries, pin cherries, choke cherries, June berries, and 
mountain ash berries were all very scarce this year. Bears were attracted to 
areas where food could be obtained. This usually was close to human habitation 
and hence more encounters were made . 



25 



Although many of the animals destroyed during the Summer of 1968 
were in close association with garbage (a good food supply), most of them were in 
very poor condition. Perhaps this best explains their ferocious nature where food 
resulting from human activity was discovered. (This prompted early reporting and 
hence early destroying.) 

In Table 6, the average dressing percentage of 18.2% for 1968 is 
considerably higher than 14.1%, which Douglas (1959) reports for 1958. It is 
felt that the general poor condition of the animals in 1968, having less fat than 
normal, is responsible for this higher figure. 

It was observed that the last animals examined in 1968 for the 
most part had not acquired the large amount of fat commonly present on bears 
preparing for hibernation. Some bears had very prominent vertebrae, the normal 
amount of fat not as yet stored. 

In view of the general condition of bears entering hibernation in 
1968, it is felt that the hibernation mortality and fetal cub mortality could be 
quite high. 

Until the actual ages are obtained, we can make no reliable cor- 
relations between weight and measurement ranges and age. 

Live trapping nuisance bears and transporting them to remote areas 
has several merits over destroying the animal. 

1. Prevents a ruthless slaughter of a big game 
species. 

2. In the public's eye, it reflects a construc- 
tive positive effort on the part of the 
Department , 

3. Provides information on Black Bear behavior 
as a basis for management -application. 

4. Can be accomplished in less time than if 
Department staff stalk the animal and des- 
troy it . 

5. Prevents overtime problems. 

6. Prevents unnecessary use of high-power rifles 
around built-up areas. 

Coit of eight nuisance bears trapped, removed from the site, tagged, 
and released, only one returned, suggesting that the purpose of trapping and trans- 
porting was generally fulfilled. 

The animal that did return, was removed from the site approximately 
70 miles by road with a return distance of 36 miles as the crow flies. To cover 
this distance in eight days or less, we feel there must have been a very strong 
stimulus to return. We suspect strongly that the bear was the mother of three cubs 
which were frequenting the area where she was trapped. The cubs probably provided 
sufficient stimulus for her to make a hasty return. It was also noticed that this 
bear would come out to the side of the Trans -Canada Highway, where cars would stop 
for people to feed her. This could have been an added stimulus to return. One 
thing was most obvious about this bear--she had a very good sense of direction. 



26 



We do not know why male bears make up such a large proportion of 
the animals measured (eg., males to females— approximately 2:1), or if this ratio 
is representative of the Black Rear in our area. 

As a general rule, residents and, in particular, local residents 
are not interested in shooting the Black Bear as a game animal; they prefer to 
observe rather than shoot. This can be seen at almost any garbage clump frequented 
by bears in the district. Non-residents, like residents, derive a great deal of 
enjoyment from just observing the bears. Most non-residents, if given the oppor- 
tunity during the hunting season, will shoot the Black Bear and thus differ from 
most resident hunters. 

The Black Bear becomes a nuisance factor when he starts disrupting 
the normal course of human behavior. If a person (resident) is in the habit of 
placing his garbage in a certain location and a bear discovers it as a food source, 
the resident is not willing to change his garbage disposal arrangements but prefers 
to destroy the animal. 

Another nuisance problem again brought on by human behaviour is 
hand-feeding bears. The bear begins to accept food from man and recognizes him as 
a potential food source. As soon as an individual with zio food meets the bear, 
the trouble starts,, 

The following arc some incidents involving Black Bears which 
occurred in the White River District as a result of human behaviour: 

1. All over the district, people were, able to 
feed bears out of their hands. 

2. One chased a tourist out of a garbage pit and 
refused to leave. 

3. A bear smelled breakfast cooking in an alu- 
minium trailer. It tried to go through a 
small window and a man beat off the bear with 
a rail off a bunk bed, $1,000,00 damage to 
the trailer. 

4. A bear picked up a dead bear which was shot 
15 minutes before, carried it away, nnd ate 
it . 

5. A bear was shot coming into a kitchen while 
a woman was baking bread 

6. Several tents were entered by bears when oc- 
cupants were in the tent eating. 

7. A bear climbed in back of a truck to get gar- 
bage before the driver could finish emptying 
the garbage cans. 



27 



8. In one bush camp, two bears were snared, then 
clubbed with axes when they tried to enter the 
tents. 

9. A bear climbed into a fisherman's boat after 
fish while the boat was at a landing. The bear 
would not get out of the boat until the fish 
were totally consumed. 

The above list emphasizes the fact that the bears, during the 
Summer of 1968, were hungry and showed no limit in how far they would go to get 
food. 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



1. That each division have a live trap. 

2. That there be a tranquilizer gun available to 
each division. 

3. That shooting bears in garbage dumps or places 
where bears provide viewing enjoyment for the 
large number of people be outlawed. 

A. That the Black Bear would be valued more as a 
game animal by local residents if each hunter 
were only able to take one bear. 

5. In British Columbia, signs warning tourists 
not to feed the bears are posted along high- 
ways and in parks, etc. We strongly suggest 
that this effort be introduced in Ontario. 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I wish to show my gratitude to the Department field staff, who 
helped collect the information for this report — Conservation Officers R, Jerrard, 
K. Charles, D. Dorey, R. White, and R. Hamilton. I wish to thank the District 
Biologist, T. Harrison, for his interest and help. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Douglas, C. W.. 1959 : "The Size, Rate of Growth & Longevity 
of the Black Bear," White River District, Unpublished Report. 

Patrick, N. P., 1963 : "Black Bear are Becoming an Important 
Big Game Animal," Ontario Fish & Wildlife Review, Vol. 2, No. 4. 

Encyclopedia Americana . Book 3, Copyright, 1963. 

Defenders of Wildlife News . Oct., Nov., & Dec, 1968. 



28 



DUCK BANDING BY THE NIGHT -LIGHTING METHOD 
Summer, 1968 

by 

D. N. MEEKING, C. K. BARWELL & S. J. TOOLE 
Lindsay District 



ABSTRACT 



During the summer of 1968, a car-top boat with 
improvised night -lighting equipment was used to band 
ducks at different places in the District where a full- 
sized air boat could not readily operate. In 27.5 
hours of operation on eight nights in July and August, 
a total of six ducks were banded. 



INTRODUCTION 

Using Co-operative Banding funds, it was decided to design and 
evaluate a method whereby ducks could be banded in areas where other capture 
methods or the use of large boats were impractical. 

Douglas N. Meeking, with occasional help from District Fish and 
Wildlife staff, designed and tested such a unit in four places in the Lindsay 
District. 

The Town of Lindsay sewage lagoons were tried first, then Goose 
Lake in the County of Victoria near the Village of Cambray and then Goose Bay on 
the south end of Sturgeon Lake. These three areas were picked because other capture 
methods had failed there previously or were obviously impractical. The unit was 
also used at Presqu'ile Provincial Park since Meeking was at the time capturing 
ducks by the trap method. 

METHODS 

A three horse-power Briggs and Stratton four-cycle gasoline engine 
with a horizontal shaft was used to power the lighting equipment. 

The engine was bolted to a welded angle iron frame. A 60 ampere 
alternator was also attached to the frame and a V-belt drive was used. 

Originally, three 2,000 candle-power aircraft landing lights were 
attached to a bar so each light could move in a 60° arc to either side. The light 
bar was then bolted to the bow deck of a 14 foot aluminum "car-top" boat and the 
generating equipment placed amidships. This lighting unit cost $241.44 including 
assembly. 



29 



At first the boat was powered by a two -and -one -half horsepower 
air-drive motor, but as this proved inadequate, a similar five-horse motor was 
hired from a local resort operator. 

A two-foot diameter landing net with a deep "bag" and a nine- 
foot handle was used to capture ducks. For ease in handling captive birds, a wire 
pen two feet long by one foot high by one foot wide was constructed. One end of 
this box was left open with a piece of burlap which could be used to close it. 

The unit was used in areas with high local duck populations. The 
lights were set in order to light an area approximately 20 yards in front and ten 
feet on either side of the boat. When ducks were sighted, the boat was manoeuvered 
by the driver so that the net man in the bow could scoop the birds from the water. 
When circumstances permitted, standard U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service leg bands 
were applied to the captured ducks. 

RESULTS 

Twenty ducks were caught. All but six of these were too young to 
band. The overall capture rate was one duck per 1.4 hours of operation. The 
banding rate was one duck per 4.6 hours of operation. 

Results are given in Table I. Reports of each night of banding 
are also appended. 

The remaining portion of this report was written by D. Meeking. 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Without the use of proper equipment, I feel it is a waste of time, 
money, and man-power to attempt to band waterfowl by the "night-lighting" method. 

The 5 h.p. air-motor was inadequate, and I feel that nothing less 
than a 20 hup. motor should be used. For full mobility, the boat must be able to 
push through light cattail and rush stands, as well as over solid mats of lily pads 
in order to pursue ducks where they are most often found. For maximum ease of 
transport and full manoeverability, the boat used should be no longer than 14 feet, 
and I feel that a 12-foot boat would do. It should be of the "john-boat" type, 
i.e. maintaining its width (4-5 feet) along its full length. This craft would draw 
little water and be stable as well as manoeuverable, 

A good lighting system is also a must. The aircraft landing lights 
used on the project overworked the 3 h.p. generator and alternator unit employed. 
Inquiries to G. E., Westinghouse and other companies specializing in lights should 
be made, as it seems certain that units are available for the same cost, which would 
draw much less wattage. 

A hand-held lamp of the type which plugs into the cigarette lighter 
socket in a car should be provided for the person in the stern of the boat operat- 
ing the motor and generator. It would be useful in searching for birds and essen- 
tial in operating the motor. 



30 



A light, aluminum landing net is the most convenient for catching 
birds. 

This method of capturing ducks is not effective in open water, 
and was not developed for this purpose. It should be used only in marsh areas 
where the ducks may hear but will not see the boat until it is within striking 
range. Ideal areas include such places in the Lindsay District as Goose Lake, 
Mariposa Township, Victoria County, and the marsh on the east side of Presqu'ile 
Provincial Park. Unfortunately, there was no time to test the method in the marshes 
of Percy Roach in Northumberland County. 

There is one further major problem which should be discussed. It 
is of little use to capture ducks before the first of August since many are still 
too small to band. This means that night-lighting, if done at the right time of 
the year, will interfere with normal trapping operations carried out at Presqu'ile 
Park. Either one or the other method could be used exclusively or separate crews 
could carry out each operation. 

The night- lighting unit should be as portable as possible. Unless 
used on a large marsh area such as Percy Reach or the south end of Lake Scugog 
(Osier's Marsh) where it might be feasible to operate for a full week, it should 
not be used more than one or two nights on any one marsh. The cr.'ew should have a 
pre-arranged schedule of places of operation during August and September. 

Night- lighting is a two-man operation and both operators should 
remain on the job full-time to increase efficiency by experience. This is especial- 
ly necessary to perfect the removal of ducks from the water with the landing net. 
Although costs would be increased, I feel that the crew should consist of one senior 
university student plus a less experienced student. 

The crew could be supplied with detailed maps of the areas they will 
operate in. This means that the unit could operate with minimum assistance from 
local Fish and Wildlife Branch staff. 

The assistant university student, having gained a year or two of 
experience, could lead the crew when the senior student leaves upon graduation. 
Thus, there would not be an inexperienced crew starting banding in later years. 

Operating such a unit as this in the black of night is potentially 
dangerous when conducted in a marsh where there are unknown obstacles, etc. The 
boat should be equipped with a tool kit, fire extinguisher for gasoline fires, life 
preservers of the C02 inflatable belt type (to lessen dangerous bulk), a first aid 
kit, matches, and a small axe. This equipment could be stored beneath the foredeck 
where it would be out of the way. 

The seat at the front of the boat should be 3-4 feet from the bow, 
and about 24-32 inches above the bottom to permit effective handling of the landing 
net. Non-slip foot rests should be provided for the net handler as he must move 
quickly but safely to achieve best results, especially when operating in a flock of 
ducks where several birds may be netted at once if the net-man is fast and adept. 

I firmly believe that night -lighting is effective if done properly. 
Although there would be a substantial initial expense in obtaining the proper 



31 



equipment described above, many ducks would be banded which would not be by using 
other methods. The boat, minus its lighting unit, could be used for enforcement 
in the fall and possibly for census work in the spring. It would thus receive 
enough use to make the investment worthwhile. We are attempting a very specialized 
operation and must realize that the proper equipment is most essential. 

Best results are obtained on dark, still nights, though moderately 
light nights have proved fairly good. High winds appear to make the ducks nervous 
and reduce the manoeuverability of the boat. 



32 



CO 



a 



S3 

c/2 



5 



CO 













44 




1 








O T3 




<U 








CO 01 




2 








3| 




,Q 




<»"s 




•rl 
r-4 JJ 




CM 




44 




1 


o 


/■"», 


/•"s 


CJ 




»> CD 


CO W 

« Q 


« r-l 


« 


3 




« P 


"0 CO 


TJ 


■a 




Tj r-l 


O SB 


M 0) 


H 






M rf» 


a <j 


to u 


CO 


^ 




CO 


5 M 


»H 


1-4 


CJ 




r-4 CM 




rH 13 


r-( 


« 




rH 




co oj 


m 


rH 




CO » /~\ 




9 M> 


g 


_Q 




B 44 rH 




6 








O CO 




rH -rl 


CM 


r-« 




m 3 J) 










•rl 






O 


CM 


rH 


B 


CO 


o 












y 












1 


C-> 


CM 


ON 


rH 
•H 


o 

CM 


PM 








25 




3 












o 


















CO 

1 






E3 


£ 


1 


r-l 




w 


o 


1 


(U 


•rl 




to 


r-l 




55 


S3 

















o 












taN 




»n 






m 


ig 


r*. 




en 


CM 


• 


o w 






r-l 




CM 


« & 












o 












Q 












co W 












O c2 












CM 


r-l 


<T 


r-l 


00 


M W 












53 Pk 












O 


















• 










• 


£ 


a) 








o 




44 






w 
pi 


O 


CD 
rH 


^ 






o 


co 


«H 








o 


•h 


>■ 


a 






00 


M 


3 


O 






a 


O 


O* 


s 






■U 


m 


00 








a 


CJ 


u 






0) 


•rl 


rf 


3 






oo 


> 


CM 


4J 






«o 






co 






5 


f| 


n 








5 


a) 


>, 


n 






CO 


44 


CO 


!>•, 




25 

5 


►> 


^ 


PQ 


FQ 




H 
H 


co 

(0 


(U 


9 

CO 


Q> 


3 


< 


p! 


o 


a. 


CQ 

O 


3 


s 


•rl 
1-4 


cS 


£ 


5 


o 



33 



SAMPLE FORM 



LINDSAY DISTRICT 



NIGHT -LIGHTING PROJECT. SUMMER. 1968 



NIGHTLY REPORT OF BANDING OPERATIONS 



Date : July 22. 1968 



Time : 


9 


p.m. to 1 


a ,tn. 




Crew: 


D, 


Me eking 








C. 


K. Barwe 


11 




Location: 


Lindsay 


Sewage 


Lagoons 



Weather: Temp. 70° F. 



Cloud 


Cover c 






Precipitation Nil 


Wind- 


-Direction 
Velocity 


W 






20 


mph . 



SEEN 


DUCKS 
CAUGHT 


BANDED 


100 estimated 


3 


2 Blue-winged Teal 






1 Mallard 



















































Comments : Light night and bright aluminum boat seemed to make the birds nervous 
Birds swam ashore and hid in grass. Boat not fast enough with 2 h.p. air motor 
Need wide angle light for close in. More birds seen at dusk than during the 
operation. 



(Bands # 645-76893, # 645-76894, and # 827-22943) 



34 



THE GREAT FISHING PARADISE --WILL IT STAND THE STRAIN? 

by 

Carl E. MONK, Conservation Officer 
Thunder Bay District 

FORWARD 

The other day, an old Indian said to me: "I wonder why they don't 
just catch enough to eat and let the rest go!" And well he might "wonder" too. 
His people have been using the lakes of the Great Fishing Paradise to travel on 
and drink out of and fish in for thousands of years, and there is no record any- 
where of the Indian ever hurting any lake. For one thing, their numbers were 
alway; too few and their weapons too crude to take a serious toll of the fishery 
resources „ 

But that was yesterday. Today, this Great Fisherman's Paradise-- 
the only one of its kind in the world--trembles under the sportsman's heavy heel. 
Annually, it caters to several hundred thousand anglers--most of them coming from 
the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois. Altogether, they 
spend several million dollars for licences, supplies, and services. How many tons 
of fish they catch and eat or waste isn't known. But it is estimated that ninety 
per cent of them take fish home. Perhaps they export 10,000,000 pounds yearly. 

Nobody knows either, how many lakes there are in this Angler's 
Utopia. No one's bothered to count them. The only thing for certain is that they 
are being fished harder and longer as each year goes by. 

ABSTRACT 



During the period May 23 to July 7, conservation 
officers held a series of angler checks in the Port 
Arthur District (Thunder Bay). Exactly 8,951 fisher- 
men were interviewed. They revealed that a large 
percentage of them are meat -hunters first and true 
sportsmen second. Some 539 of them were warned for 
various infractions of the fishery laws. Another 262 
were charged for violating one or more of the regula- 
tions. The officers were obliged to confiscate the 
following evidence: 1 car, 4 trailers, 8 outboard 
motors, 24 fishing rods and reels, 61 coolers, and 
2\ tons of fish--mostly pickerel fillets. 

Altogether they checked a little over 55 tons 
of fish. 



35 



INTRODUCTION 

It was late evening in February, 1969. Three conservation officers 
sat around a table in an upstairs restaurant in Superior, Wisconsin. The insignia 
on their uniforms represented three different governments: Wisconsin, Minnesota, 
and Ontario . 

"I tell you," the Wisconsin officer said, "they're cleaning you out! 
If you don't start checking pretty soon, you'll have nothing left to check." 

"I know one gang from Minneapolis that should be caught," interjected 
the Minnesota officer, "they bring back a boatload of pickerel each spring--they 
even hold a big fish fry in the basement of a church." 

"Yeah!" answered the man from Wisconsin, "and they've got a hundred 
ways to beat you. Lots of them I know stache coolers of fish in those compartments 
under the mattress in their campers. Some others pile a whole bunch of fillets in 
a minnow bucket and hide it under their clothes." 

"You want to make sure you check the bottom of the coolers," sugges- 
ted the Minnesota officer, "some of them are real cute--they '11 have their legal 
limit on top and have the bottom of the cooler packed with fillets. You should 
check more at night too. Some of them deliberately wait until after midnight to 
cross that border (he was referring to the Pigeon River International boundary 
between Canada and the United States) . I guess they figure you guys quit at 
5 o'clock." 

The conversation continued well into the night. Each story had the 
ring of truth about it. Names, times, places, etc. were scribbled down in a black 
book and a mental note made to check it out at a later date. 

Now, the management of the fishery resources of this Province are 
dependent upon, among other things, the enforcement of the fishing regulations. 
Angler checks provide us with an assessment of the resource as well as an oppor- 
tunity to enforce the fishery laws. The first in a series of well organized and 
efficient spot checks started on May 23, 1969. 

THE CHECKS AND HOW THEY FUNCTIONED 

The ideal check point in this District, and possibly the entire 
Province, is the Pigeon River border crossing between Canada and the United States. 
It's located in the bush about 40 miles southwest of the city of Thunder Bay on 
Highway # 61. There is ample parking opposite the Canadian Customs complex. If 
any individual should decide to run the check, American Customs officials across 
the river would send him back (this occurred on a half dozen occasions). On all 
the checks at this border, the Canadian Customs officials facilitated our work. 
Parties not fishing were cleared without delay. Others were requested to report 
to the conservation officers in the parking lot. 

Depending on circumstances, anglers' answers to all questions were 
taken for what they were worth. The inspection of buckets, coolers, duffle, and 
other gear, however, soon became routine. It also became apparent that when five 
fishermen stated: "We've got the limit!" it didn't necessarily mean they had 30 
pickerel. Vehicles such as boats, campers, cars, or trucks were not searched, 



36 



as a rule, unless there was a strong belief that things were not as originally 
stated. Examining every vehicle was out of the question. Have you ever looked 
inside a fisherman's camper on its way home after a week's trip into Ontario's 
bushlands? Just untangling the driftwood and rocks is enough to discourage even 
the most spirited rookie. 

Packing fish in small places is also a matter that can't be disre- 
garded too lightly. In this category, though, the modern housewife has to "take 
the cake." One evening early in June, we were conducting a check at the Pigeon 
River border. A truck-camper rolled up to the checkpoint and the driver stepped 
out. "Yeah J" he said, "We've got about four pickerel." 

"No!" his wife interjected, "I packed a few more fillets that you 
caught a couple of days ago--they're in the fridge." 

She produced a plastic ice cream container--probably it measured 
eight inches across by five inches in depth. The scene that followed might well 
have been right out of an Aesop Fable--complete with a bottomless jug. For out 
of that insignificant dish I took 14 pickerel fillets. Everybody was astonished. 
Their creel was within one of the legal limit and the matter of exporting uniden- 
tifiable fish was up for grabs. After several unsuccessful attempts to return 
the fish to the container, we handed them back to the lady and requested her to 
leave us a piece of skin next time for identification purposes. The incident 
served as a real eye-opener to some of the rookie conservation officers. 

The checks held along highway 17 at Shabaqua and Argon were not as 
convenient. They were safe, though, because of available parking space and the 
assistance of the Ontario Provincial Police. Similarly, checks on the Spruce 
River, Black Sturgeon, and Graham roads were held at safe locations with good 
visibility and turnouts. The procedure was the same as at Pigeon River--those 
not fishing drove on, others were checked. 

THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES— THEIR COOLER RUNNETH OVER 

A quick glance at Tables 4 and 5 reveals that we weren't fooling 
around with any petty charges. Miscounts of fish certainly played no part in any 
of the cases. No party was charged for possessing less than three fish over the 
legal limit. 

Over a period of six weeks, the officers issued 403 warnings for 
transporting skinned, cut up, or frozen fish that couldn't be identified or 
counted (see Table 4). This is ridiculous. Something must be wrong with our communi- 
cations. But the 68 charges laid under Section 20, and the seven under Section 18 
were justified (Table 4). Whether or not the fish could be identified (usually 
they were fillets without skin) didn't bother the officers that much. If, for 
example, a party of two were checked with 24 fillets and stated they had the limit 
of pickerel, and the fillets looked like pickerel and could be counted, it was 
good enough for the officers. Warnings were issued for these and similar cases. 
If, however, a party of two said they had the limit of pickerel and/or pike, and 
the officers counted out much more than 24 or 48 fillets, charges were laid. Here 
again, if there were only a fish or two over the limit, a warning resulted. Perhaps 
it should be made abundantly clear that no one was charged under either Section 18 
or 20 if they obviously did not have over their limit when the fish could be counted. 



37 



Frozen bags or chunks of filleted fish, on the other hand, gave us 
no end of grief. In these cases, the line was drawn a little tighter. Fillets 
frozen in ice, milk cartons, or burlap bags are usually unrecognizable and uncount- 
able. The officers didn't stand on ceremony very long before taking up the slack 
in these cases. 

Similarly, fishermen attempting to export a limit of skinned and 
filleted pickerel, bass, sauger, and perch found it difficult to convince the 
officers that the fillets were what they said they were. Several of them, though, 
tried to sell the idea, but the officers weren't buying it. There's just no way 
to positively distinguish between filleted and skinned pickerel and sauger with 
the naked eye. Probably 70 out of the 75 charged under Sections 18 and 20 were 
guilty of violating Section 11 (3) (Items 1, 3, and 4--Table 4). (But this is 
what you have to put up with when you're dealing with "Catch as catch can" anglers.) 

Item 5 — Table 4--denotes the warnings and charges under Section 73 
of the Game and Fish Act. It has to do with the transporting of fish in recepta- 
cles not plainly marked. It is also worthy of comment. This charge, in all cases, 
was made only after a very careful investigation into excessive amounts of fish 
being transported by some unscrupulous fishermen „ Usually, they would have a 
quantity of fish packed in one or more coolers arid they would always state that 
they had the limit. After checking, an officer would find several fish too many. 
The angler would then righteously respond with a "believe it or not" receipt 
purporting that the fish were purchased from a commercial fisherman. Simple 
questioning by the officer, however, soon punched this story full of holes. Most 
of the fishermen would confess the caper--admit the overlimit . Others stubbornly 
stuck to their guns — insisted they'd bought them. In one case, the offender was 
arrested Friday evening, June 27, 1969 — exactly one day before the receipt was 
supposed to have been issued. Because the fish were not separated from their 
angling creel, i.e. could not be identified any way and the receipt was believed 
ficticious, a charge was laid under Section 73 of the Game and Fish Act. 

Not all anglers, however, who purchased fish from commercial 
fishermen, were suspects. Those who produced legitimate receipts, boxed the fish 
properly, and identified them, were checked through without any trouble. 

The ramifications of checking up on these so-called purchased fish, 
after an angler check, are obvious. Some of them involve fly-in camps. Commercial 
fishermen's records are not always up to date and often are hard to fathom. The 
weights of fish or fillets, either caught or landed and/or tallied and sold, require 
something more than a slide rule to interpret. And, of course, these "after the 
fact" investigations leave much to be desired. Usually, contacts have been made, 
stories cooked, and holes plugged. 

Table 5 presents the "Number of Pickerel over the Limit Category." 
It indicates just how hungry these sportsmen were getting. More than one-third 
of them were charged with between five and ten pickerel too many-Item 2. More 
were caught with between ten and twenty over the limit (Item 3 — 23%) than with 
less than five illegal fish (Item l--217o). In fact, one-fifth of all those charged 
had in excess of twenty or more pickerel above the legal limit (Items 4, 5, 6, and 
7). Nearly 47 had fifty pickerel too many (Item 7). 

Aside from this situation, there were 107 warnings issued during 
the same period for one or two pickerel extra. Admittedly, some of these warnings 
involved large groups; for example, 9 anglers with 4 over, 7 with 3 too many, or 



38 



9 with 4 extra.- Nevertheless, they still represent a serious and flagrant disregard 
of the legal limit of six. Ponder for an instant the pyramid of numbers: 

1. The officers checked 8,951 anglers. 

2. Give to each one an extra pickerel. 

3. That's 8,951 fish or the legal limit of 
1,491 anglers. 

By weight it probably crowds nine tons. With these kind of figures, the old quip: 
"It's only one fish!" takes on a new connotation. 

THE SEIZURES- -A FISH FRY FOR THE POOR PEOPLE 

No fisherman was permitted to leave a check station with extra fish 
if we could help it. All over-the-limit fish, regardless of the circumstances, were 
confiscated. This includes the many warning cases where one, two, three, or four 
extra fish were concerned. For example, a party of five would have 33 pickerel — 
three too many; the officer would simply take the three illegal fish and request 
the sportsman to sharpen up on his arithmetic the next time. (No A-110 receipts 
were issued for this type of seizure.) 

A party of five, however, who had 36 pickerel were charged. Usually, 
after consultation with the anglers, one person would claim the extra fish. In 
these cases, the six illegal pickerel, as well as the six legal ones, of the vio- 
lator were seized. The rest of the group were allowed to keep their legal limits. 
Coolers and other fishing gear were not, as a rule, confiscated in these and 
similar situations. 

A typical example follows: Four anglers were caught with 50 
pickerel, 24 pike, 10 lake trout, and a whitefish; the fish were packed in four ice 
chests, a water barrel and a minnow bucket. The four anglers were automatically 
charged; three of the ice chests, the minnow bucket, and the 50 pickerel were 
seized. The fishermen were permitted to keep the other species of fish and one of 
the coolers. 

Boats, motors, and other angling gear were sometimes impounded when 
over-limits surged above 100. One party of six, apprehended with 336 pickerel too 
many, forfeited a car, a trailer, six coolers, four outboard motors, a rifle, a 
chain saw, some tackle, and all their fish. 

During the entire check, officers seized the following: one car, 
four trailers, eight outboard motors, 24 rods and reels, various tackle, and 61 
coolers. They also confiscated 2% tons of fish--most of them were pickerel fillets. 
About 80% of the fish were donated to the Salvation Army at Thunder Bay. The rest 
were given to the local Indian band. 

THE PENALTIES- -A MATTER OF SIMPLE ARITHMETIC 

The serious business of fines is the responsibility of the court. 
The Judge decides what penalty a person will pay for breaking the fishery laws. For 
a long time now, the fine in Thunder Bay District for taking too many fish was based 



39 



on a simple formula: $10.00 fine plus $2.00 costs plus $3.00 for each fish over 
the limit. But very early in the game this spring, the price of fish went up. 
Item 1 of Table 1 (42 violations detected for 329 anglers checked--more than 12%) 
unveiled the problem. "Henceforth," the Judge demanded, "everyone who takes too 
many fish will pay a fine of $25.00 and costs plus $3.00 per fish up to five over 
the limit and, if they have more than five over, it will be $5.00 per fish for 
every fish over the limit. Residents and non-residents will both pay the same 
rate." 

An angler then, with 20 pickerel too many, would pay $27.00 plus 
20 x 5 ■ $100.00 for a total fine and costs of $127.00. A fish hog from Arthur 
Street was treated the same as one from Madison Avenue. 

The fines varied from a low of $12.00 (the minimum at the first 
check) to a high of $307.00 with many in the high hundreds. 

Altogether, the 262 anglers charged and ultimately convicted paid 
the Province $13,173.00 in fines and costs. 

SIX ANGLERS FROM MINNESOTA- -THEY PUT ESNAGAMI LAKE ON THE MAP OF THE WORLD 

It was around 7:30 p.m., Saturday, June 14. Rain had just soaked 
the tarmac adjacent to the Canadian Customs complex at Pigeon River. And now the 
wind had swung to the north and was beginning to blow harder. Officers Bernard, 
Wall, and Russell Maa were busy at the east end of the lot relieving eight Wisconsin 
anglers of some excess baggage- -namely 500 and some odd pickerel fillets. 

The six Minnesota fishermen drove up and parked at the west end. 
One of them stepped out, observed the officers counting the huge pile of fillets, 
and asked "What are those guys doing?" 

"Sir!" I answered, "These men have more than 200 pickerel too many." 

"That's terrible," he remarked with sincerity, "to take that many 
fish." 

Naturally, it was assumed that this party would be legal. I 
decided, therefore, to only ask where they'd been fishing, if they were licensed, 
and record the number of fish they had on board. Besides, we were getting ready 
to call it quits anyway — none of us had had supper yet. But something about the 
way in which one of them said "We got the limit!" suggested that, maybe, a cursory 
inspection of the fish was warranted. They were travelling in two cars; each car 
pulled a two-wheel trailer about six feet wide, eight feet long, and four feet 
high. The trailers were well packed and tarped. Searching each one would be time 
consuming and unjustified under the circumstances. I asked where the fish were. 
A couple of them dug out a cooler. It contained 85 pickerel, all filleted. 

"I guess we got a couple too many," one of them said, "fishing was 
good, and we didn't want to waste any. What's it going to cost us? We're in kind 
of a hurry." 

"I don't know offhand," I mused, "is this all the fish you have?" 

"Yeah!" replied another. "You've got them all." 



40 



But Officer Dennis Forbes observed a small styrofoam cooler in 
the other trailer — it held about a half dozen more pickerel. 

"I guess we forgot about those," the same angler said. "Anyway, 
that's the lot." 

By this time though, we were getting suspicious. These men hadn't 
spoken an honest word since we met them. A complete search of all gear and vehicles 
was in order. That search uncovered four other coolers containing an estimated 265 
pickerel. (Later that night, a systematic count of all the fish tallied 372 pickerel). 

They were arrested on the spot and advised of their rights. One car 
and all the gear in one trailer as well as the coolers and all the fish were seized. 
They promised to appear in court at Thunder Bay on Monday, June 16 at 2:00 p.m.-- 
a promise they eventually kept. 

Judge Connor fined them $307.00 each and accused them of "abusing 
our hospitality." Right after court, the story became public knowledge--ulti- 
mately published in leading newspapers across Canada and the United States. Ever 
since that day, we've been getting inquiries wanting to know the name of the lake 
where these anglers fished. For what it's worth, it was Esnagami Lake situated some 
12 miles north of Nakina, Ontario. 

In addition to the heavy fines paid ($1,842.00), the fishermen had 
to negotiate for the return of their car and other gear. This set them back another 
$275.00 and pushed the price of those fish beyond $2,000. Perhaps, also, it will 
help them to recall a "Saturday Night at Pigeon River" for a very long time to come. 
For they came within an eyelash of getting away with it. 

THE ANGLER SUCCESS PICTURE— IT TOTALS FIFTY-FIVE TONS 

Table 6 details the days fished by all anglers along with the fish 
they possessed when checked. It discloses that 8,951 anglers fished an average of 
3.9 days each. Although this is a poor substitute for a creel census, it does 
indicate just how good the angling was. Item 4 — "a little over 55 tons" seems a 
bit incredible too. Does it suggest that they are meat hunters? Admittedly, the 
figures are a bit out of focus--a little over 1\ tons were confiscated. Perhaps 
this should be deducted from the total; that would leave 52 3/4 tons. Yet, some 
of the 2\ tons seized were legally caught. Seems like no matter how hard you try 
to cook it, it's still a big fish fry. 

Table 6 also shows a strong preference for pickerel. Without doubt, 
they're the most sought after fish in this part of the province. It reveals that 
they were favoured 2:1 over pike, 10:1 over lake trout, and 48:1 over speckled 
trout. No effort was made to find out if a party were primarily interested in trout, 
and had to settle for pickerel because the trout weren't biting. The odd fisherman, 
of course, had his limit of both. 

The speckled trout angler, as usual, was in a class by himself. 
There weren't that many of them, but what there were, were true sportsmen. 



41 



LAC PES MILLE LACS --WHERE THE FISHIN'S EASY 

Lac des Mille Lacs is situated near the Trans-Canada Highway some 
90 miles west and a little north of Thunder Bay. It's about six hours driving time 
from Duluth, eleven from Minneapolis, and sixteen from Chicago. Figuratively, it's 
the heartland of the Great Fishing Paradise—not so much for its location, but 
because of its preferability . Accordingly, some anglers take to it like penned 
sharks to the open sea . 

Table 7 compares the Lac des Mille Lacs story with the overall 
check. Item 1 indicates that 12% of all anglers checked, favoured this lake. They 
had better luck too--fished fewer days and caught more fish. Item 3 discloses that 
they fished .4 days fewer. Item 4, however, reveals that they caught 19% of all 
the pickerel. Likewise, Items 7 and 8 testify to the ease with which pickerel were 
hooked. And yet, these latter Items depict an aspect of the lake's story that few 
people are likely to admire. Pickerel overlimlts of 22% and 15% are far above the 
District mean. 



INTERESTING SIDELIGHTS 

Some of the comments made during the checks were priceless. Here, 
for what it's worth, are a few of them: 

"A really big meal " — Officer Wall had occasion to question a party 
of four Wisconsin anglers one day regarding their fishing activities: 

"How's the fishing fellows?" he asked. 

"Not bad!" replied one of them. 

"How many do you have?" 

"A couple of meals!" they answered. 

Officer Wall counted out exactly one gross of pickerel over the 
limit— 168 pickerel in all. 

" Extra, extra long fish "--Another party of two from Minnesota went 
to great pains to take home extra fish. They carefully filleted a couple dozen 
pickerel— with the skin on. Then they sewed two fillets end to end and froze them 
together with another pair to make it look like one fish. When the officers asked 
to look at the fish, the anglers stated: "We got some long pickerel!" 

"It's not 116 "--0fficer Maa asked four Illinois anglers one day if 
they were taking home the limit of pickerel. "What's the limit?" they asked. As 
it turned out, they had 92 pickerel too many— 116 in all. 

"What State is this ?"— Another party in possession of 18 pickerel 
extra were asked for their Ontario angling licence. "Is this Ontario?" they in- 
quired. You guessed it — no licences. 

"A peace offering gone astray "— Three Iowa anglers, when checked 
late at night at the Pigeon River, stated: "We don"t usually take any fish home, 
but this time we're taking back a feed for our wives." The officers discovered 
about 200 pickerel fillets hidden in a milk can in the boat. 

42 



On the average, the angler checks provided at least one good chuckle 
a day as well as the usual headaches. 

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY 

It can scarcely be concluded that the angler checks stopped illegal 
fishing. Table 1 denotes 35 charges and 40 warnings for the July 4 weekend. By 
this time, though, the cycle of serious fishermen had pretty well run its course. 
July and August are usually family vacation months. There's plenty of serious 
angling done during these months, but it's not as deliberate. This is born out by 
the following observation: In the beginning, about 95% of the traffic at Pigeon 
River was anglers; on July 7, it was equally split between fishermen and non- 
fishermen. 

The checks did, however, provide us with a glimpse of the overall 
angling picture in this part of northwestern Ontario. And they uncovered some 
pretty unscrupulous anglers. Anglers intent on plundering a lake for all its worth. 
Table 1 discloses that there were 539 warnings issued and 262 charges laid during 
the period May 23 to July 7. That't roughly 10% in violation of the fishery laws. 
From this ten per cent, the officers seized 2\ tons of fish. This is a seizure, 
the scale of which was hitherto unheard of in the Great Fishing Paradise. Suppose 
the officers checked one quarter of the anglers. Does this mean that nine tons of 
illegal fish were pirated from the same waters during the same period? If it does, 
then the lakes may be under a greater pressure than previously realized. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

These checks were a combined effort of all the conservation officers 
within the Thunder Bay District. They were assisted at times by the Ontario 
Provincial Police and the Canadian Customs officers. Two officers from the Sioux 
Lookout District; Kent Bibby, and Dave Penny, also assisted on checks at the Pigeon 
River. All these men did an outstanding job--worked many long and irregular hours. 
I am also indebted to Biologist, John Goddard, who perused the report and unselfishly 
offered constructive criticisms and changes. 



43 



TABLE 1 



THUNDER BAY DISTRICT 
TEMPORAL LOGISTICS OF THE ANGLER CHECKS 
MAY 23 TO JULY 7, 1969 



PERIOD 



PLACE OFFICERS MAN HOURS ANGLERS CHECKED WARNINGS CHARGES 

RES. N. RES. 



May ! 


23-25 


Pigeon R. 


5 


82 




329 


16 


26 


May ; 


25 


Blk„ Sturg. 


2 


12 


16 


38 


5 


4 


May 30- 
June 1 


Pigeon R. 


5 


106 




1,876 


117 


42 


June 


2 


Blk. Sturg. 


2 


16 


21 


69 


6 


8 


June 


5-7 


Pigeon R. 


4 


154 




624 


52 


33 


June 


8 


Shabaqua 


6 


48 


462 


92 


23 


13 


June 


10 


Pigeon R. 


3 


15 




171 


7 


4 


June 


11 


Argon 


3 


9 


18 


22 


2 





June 


13-15 


Pigeon R. 


6 


226 




1,622 


90 


45 


June 


20-21 


Pigeon R. 


6 


134 




918 


47 


28 


June 


22 


Spruce River R. 


2 


16 


50 


3 


3 





June 


26-28 


Pigeon R. 


5 


158 




1,284 


81 


24 


July 


4-7 


Pigeon R. 


7 


260 




1,337 


40 


35 


TOTALS 
















26 days 


5 Locations 




1,236 


567 


8,385 


539 


262 



8,951 



44 



TABLE 2 



THUNDER BAY DISTRICT 
ORIGIN OF ANGLERS CHECKED— MAY 23 TO JULY 7. 1969 



STATE OR PROVINCE NUMBER CHECKED 

Ontario 560 

Manitoba 7 

Minnesota 2,545 

Wisconsin 3,268 

Illinois 1,447 

Iowa 519 

Indiana 240 

Michigan 108 

Missouri 87 

Ohio 49 

Virginia 11 

Arkansas 9 

Florida 13 

North Dakota 12 

South Dakota 9 

California 8 

Nebraska 11 

Kansas 10 

Colorado 3 

Tenessee 4 

Pennsylvania 4 

Oklahoma 2 

Alaska 4 

45 



TABLE 2 CONTINUED 



STATE OR PROVINCE NUMBER CHECKED 

New Jersey 3 

North Carolina 4 

Oregon 5 

Georgia 3 

Texas 9 

TOTAL— 28 8,951 



There were 26 States and 2 Provinces represented in the 
check. 



46 



TABLE 3 

THE NUMBER OF CHARGES LAID AND THE ORIGIN OF THE VIOLATORS 



STATE OR PROVINCE NUMBER CHECKED NUMBER CHARGED % CHARGES 

OF THOSE CHECKED 

Ontario 560 13 2.32 

Minnesota 2,545 75 2.95 

Wisconsin 3,268 61 1.87 

Illinois 1,447 56 3.87 

Iowa 519 29 5.58 

Indiana 240 14 5.83 

Missouri 87 6 6.89 

Michigan 108 3 2.78 

Ohio 49 2 4.08 

Pennsylvania 4 1 25.00 

California 8 1 12.50 

North Dakota 12 1 8.33 

TOTAL — 12 8,951 262 100% 



47 



TABLE 4 



THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES 
THUNDER BAY DISTRICT— MAY 23 TO JULY 7, 1969 



ACT 



SECTION 



WARNED 



CHARGED 



O.F.R. 



11-3 



SUB -TOTAL 11-3 



Possession of more 


than 


6 


pickere 


si 


107 


152 


Possession of more 


than 


6 


pike 




16 


15 


Possession of more 


than 


5 


lake 








trout 










1 
124 


2 

169 



O.F.R. 



O.F.R. 



20-a,b 



18-a,b 



G. & F. 


73 


O.F.R. 


17-a 


O.F.R. 


24 


O.F.R. 


19-2 



Skinned, frozen, unable to deter- 
mine number or species 

Skinned, frozen, unable to deter- 
mine number or species 

Transport fish in receptacles 
not plainly marked 

Importing live bait fish 

Angling without license 

Exporting live fish 



393 

10 

4 
4 


4 



68 



10 
4 
4 




TOTALS 



539 



262 



O.F.R. --ONTARIO FISHERY REGULATIONS 
G. & F.--THE ONTARIO GAME AND FISH ACT 



48 



TABLE 5 



THE NUMBER OF PICKEREL OVER THE LIMIT CATEGORY 
THUNDER BAY DISTRICT ANGLER CHECK--MAY 23 TO JULY 7, 1969 



NUMBER OF PICKEREL OVER LIMIT 



NUMBER CHARGED 



PER CENT 



Less than 5 
Between 5 and 10 
Between 10 and 20 
Between 20 and 30 
Between 30 and 40 
Between 40 and 50 
Over 50-- 
TOTALS 



32 

51 

35 

15 

4 

9 

6 

152 



21.0% 

33.6% 

23 .0% 

9.9% 

2.7% 

5.9% 

3.9% 

100% 



TABLE 6 

DAYS FISHED AND FISH EXPORTED OR TRANSPORTED 
THUNDER BAY DISTRICT ANGLER CHECK— MAY 23 TO JULY 7, 1969 

The 8,951 anglers fished a total of 35,420% days--an average of 
3.9 days per angler. 

When checked, they possessed the following fish: 
Pickerel Pike L. Trout Sp. Trout Bass Perch Whitefish K. Trout 
33,865 16,036 3,173 704 756 531 148 34 

Sauger Maskinonge Sturgeon Ling Sucker 
20 5 4 1 26 

Estimated weight of all fish--110,454 pounds--a little over 55 tons. 



49 



COMPARISON —LAC PES MILLE LACS 
THUNDER BAY DISTRICT ANGLER CHECK— MAY 23 TO JULY 7, 1969 



1. Anglers 

2. Days Fished 

3. Average Days Fished 

4. Pickerel 

5 . Pike 

6. Warned Sec. 20, O.F.R. 

7. Warned Sec. 11(3) O.F.R. 

8. Charged 



DISTRICT 


LAC DES MILLE LACS 


PERCENTAGE 


8,951 


1,102 


12% 


35,420% 


3,578 


10% 


3.9 


3. 




33,865 


6,373 


19% 


16,036 


1,727 


10% 


393 


81 


20% 


124 


28 


22% 


262 


39 


15% 



50 



ONTARIO DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS 



- RESOURCE MGT. REPCRT 



#104. January Iy/0 



, UTHOR Anonymous 



BORROWER'S NAME